The Already-Not-Yet Nature of the Sabbath

It's been awhile since we've had any discussion of the continuing nature of the Sabbath. In Greg Beale's fantastic book, A New Testament Biblical Theology, he discusses the eschatological implications of the Sabbath. He argues that the Sabbath as instituted at creation still persists, although the specifics of the Sabbath as mandated by Yahweh and practiced by Israel has been typologically fulfilled in Christ, which echos Calvin on the subject.  Beale then nicely summarizes:

The continuation of a weekly day of rest not only commemorates this past rest but also points forward to Christ's final coming, when believers themselves will be resurrected bodily and completely enter the same rest that Christ has already fully entered. Sabbatarians, however, continue to label this commemorative day to be the "Sabbath," since the sign to which the weekly Sabbath points has not yet been finally and completely fulfilled. This is not a simple carry-over of Israel's Sabbath ordinance; it is a continuation of the expression of the creation ordinance...which mandated that humanity rest on the seventh day (p. 800).

And so, those who complain that Christians don't really celebrate the Sabbath, because they should still be observing it on Saturdays, not Sundays, fail to appreciate the eschatological already-not-yet significance of Christ's coming. The Sabbath is fulfilled in Christ, but not all aspects of the Sabbath will have been fulfilled until the final consummation at Christ's second coming.

The Destruction of Jerusalem Was More Apocalyptic Than You Think

It seems like most commentators are comfortable seeing the Olivette Discourse (Matt. 24:3-25:46; Mk. 13) as referring in its first half to the destruction of Jerusalem and then in the later half to the end of days parousia of Jesus. In Matthew, one stretch that seems somewhat divisive is 24:29-31.

[29] “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. [30] Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. [31] And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

In particular, the most controversial aspect of these three verses is the epic apocalyptic scale of what is being described. "Tribulation," "sun will be darkened," "moon will not give its light," "stars will fall from heaven"... Most people outside of the Jewish first century culture would see a pretty huge stretch between a city being demolished and these sorts of images being fulfilled. As a consequence, a large number of commentators include verses 29-31 in the second half of the Olivette Discourse and say that this is imagery of Jesus' eventual parousia, visitation, or coming (pick your favorite translation).

What I want to quickly do is just show how the gap is not nearly as great as one might think. There is actually quite a precedent for speaking of the destruction of cities in the Old Testament with at least this level of enthusiasm. Lets look at a few in passing:

Amos 8:9
"And on that day," declares the Lord GOD, "I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight."

Joel 2:10
The earth quakes before them; the heavens tremble. The sun and the moon are darkened, and the stars withdraw their shining.

Ezekiel 32:7-8
When I blot you out, I will cover the heavens and make their stars dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud and the moon shall not give its light. All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over you, and put darkness on your land, declares the Lord GOD.

Isaiah 13:10
For the stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising, and the moon will not shed its light.

Isaiah 34:4
All the host of heaven shall rot away, and the skies roll up like a scroll. All their hosts shall fall, as leaves fall from the vine, like leaves falling from the fig tree.

These are only a few examples, and I am sure there are even more occurrences like this in the Old Testament, but I think these should suffice to prove my point. My point is that none of these texts are referring to the eschaton at the end of the age when Christ returns. All of these verses are using this epic imagery to refer to God's judgment on specific cities. The passage in Joel refers to a judgment upon Israel; the passage from Ezekiel refers to a coming judgment upon the Pharaoh of Egypt; Isaiah 13:10 refers to coming destruction on Babylon; and finally, Isaiah 34:4 referred to a coming judgment upon Edom.

R.T. France, in his commentary on Matthew, points out that these last passages from Isaiah are obviously the source of the imagery which Jesus uses in Matt. 24:29-31. In particular, the fact that Jesus would use the language of a judgment upon Babylon to refer to a coming judgment upon Israel was terribly offensive. To say that Jerusalem deserved to be treated like Babylon was the epitome of judgment.

Avoiding other arguments which could be set forth for the inclusion of Matt. 24:29-31 into part one of the Olivette Discourse rather than the second half which does refer to Jesus' parousia at the end of the age, lets simply consider once again that epic imagery need not always refer to the second coming of Christ. Instead, we ought to see Jesus as using "language of cosmic collapse...to symbolize God's acts of judgment within history, with the emphasis on catastrophic political upheavals... If such language was appropriate to describe the end of Babylon or Edom under the judgment of God, why should it not equally describe God's judgment on Jerusalem's temple and the power structure it symbolized?" (R.T. France, Matthew, 2007, p. 922)

A Theological Condemnation of the Season Finale of AMC's The Killing

In Christian theology, we have this hanging tension in our worldview. On the one hand, we are justified by Christ, but on the other hand we still await our final glorification. We have been made new, but on the other hand we are still awaiting Christ's renewal of all things in the age that is to come. In other words, we Christians like tension and we're okay not always having resolution, so long as we know that a resolution is coming.

*SPOILERS AHEAD*

AMC adapted the Danish TV show Forbrydelsen to American television and The Killing was born. A brilliantly paced show, I never minded that it was somewhat slower (I call it "patient") like AMC's other great show Rubicon before it. Cinematography, mood, dark subject matter, constant Seattle rain... all of this served one purpose... to draw us in so that we want to know who killed Rosie Larsen.

Sunday night's season finale, "Orpheus Descending" promised to offer us that resolution (it was an unstated promise) which the entire audience understood was coming. And of course next season was going to have a different murder as the subject matter - or so we thought. That's the way that the Danish series did it, anyway! Well, the finale did a bait and switch. They gave us all the answers and in the last 60 seconds of the finale showed us that no, we still don't know who killed her, and no, we don't even have any IDEA who killed her. We're seriously back to square one.

Not only that, but Linden's own partner turned out in the last 20 seconds to have been a confederate who had been working for some unseen villain the entire time. Some people think it's cute when television does that to you - they like getting blindsided. But the problem is, (as one angry reviewer opined in his violent screed against the finale) this last season was a waste of peoples' time. We were left with far MORE questions than we began the season with. The show is descending down a rabbit hole, and I'm not entirely sure that the second season is going to give us any answers now, either.

I can understand that the show's producers didn't want to do a repeat of Twin Peaks second season which answered the question of who killed Laura Palmer and left the show somewhat aimless. Clearly the producers of The Killing think that Rosie Palmer's death is merely a MacGuffin to help us get to enjoy Holder and Linden's interactions as partners, but even that was dashed when we learned that Holder was working against her the whole time.

The fact is, in Christianity, we can handle tension. But we're not nihilists. It's not supposed to be all tension! Answers ought to be forthcoming, and they ought to share truth with us about what the universe is like so that we can find delight in seeing truth out. Now, a properly Christian ending, in my mind, would be if they discovered the killer but had not caught him yet. That is a reflection of the universe we live in, with sin and death still ruining everything we do, it has not yet been put away - but it will be.

Not that a "theological condemnation" is that painful to TV executives, but I still have this to say: Shame on you, AMC. You made a great show that's 100% not yet, and 0% already. But I will definitely watch the next season and enjoy being bait-and-switched all over again, I'm sure.

King and Servant Show 25

Jonathan discusses the "already not-yet" principle of New Testament scripture, under the rubric of the Two-Age model, and how this principle relates to personal sanctification.

Was the Strong Man 'Bound' or Was He 'Overcome'?

In a friendly debate with a co-worker, I was prepared to slam-dunk him in a discussion of the Millennium in Revelation 20 - particularly the statement in 20:2 that Satan, in the millennium, was bound for a thousand years. I was arguing that in the Gospels, Jesus literally says that Satan has already been bound. Knowing that Jesus says this in Matthew, Mark, and in Luke, I invited him to turn to any of the passages where Jesus says that the strong man has been bound. In the New King James, Matthew 12:29 reads:

Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.

The parallel passage in Mark 3:27 reads:

No one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. And then he will plunder his house.

Unfortunately for me, he chose the version in Luke 11:22, which, from v. 21, reads:

When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace. But when a stronger than he comes upon him and overcomes him, he takes from him all his armor in which he trusted, and divides his spoils.

One might initially be disturbed that each version varies slightly, but especially by the fact that Luke's version of the passage uses the word "overcome" instead of the word "bind."

We should be fully aware that given the doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration, we allow for the personalities of the writers to influence their recordings of Jesus' teachings. As the Chicago Statement says:

WE AFFIRM that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.

What then, are we to think of the Matthew/Mark (hereafter 'MM') rendering in comparison to the Lukan rendering of the teaching? MM appears to teach that Satan has been bound, in some sort of long-term sense (which certainly, prima facie appears to serve my own Amill leanings). But Luke appears to teach that the strong man has been 'overcome,' which my debating partner believed to indicate a less 'permanent' sort of fate for the strong man (a momentary victory, as it were). Initially, I conceded that it appeared to be so, but after looking at the range of meanings, I have changed my tune.

As you may have noticed, MM have Jesus saying that the strong man has been 'bound' (Gk. 'daesae'), which is from 'deo' and is generally translated 'bind, tie,' but it is sometimes used to refer to someone's arrest or imprisonment.

Luke, however, records Jesus as saying that the strong man has been 'overcome.' The Greek word here is 'nikaesae'. The lexical form of this Greek word is 'nikao,' which is translated, in different places, as 'be victor, prevail, conquer, overcome, or vanquish.'

The solution to this seeming discrepancy is to first remain consistent in employing the perspicuity of Scripture and acknowledging that both words ('daesae' and 'nikaesae') are complimentary. The strong man has not been bound to the exclusion of his having been overcome, nor is he overcome to the exclusion of his binding; this is not an either/or situation. As such, one might understand the Gospels collectively to be conveying Christ's idea in this way:

Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds in victory the strong man?

A similarly likely way of understanding it would be:

Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first overcomes and binds the strong man?

I am, of course, only helping to solve a perceived discrepancy, not to suggest an alternate translation. This should be obvious, I hope.

In either case, if the Amill claims that Satan has been bound and then appeals to this passage in MM, it would be a mistake to attempt to turn Luke's rendering of the passage against MM. It is not either 'overcome' or 'bind,' but it is rather, both.

The Unprofessional Book Review: Revelation and the End of All Things by Craig R. Koester

So here we are. If you've followed along with my last eleven posts then you will be somewhat familiar with Craig Koester's approach to the book of Revelation by this point. I found the idea of reading an Amillennial/Preteristic commentary of Revelation to be an exciting prospect since I'm somewhat of an eschatology newbie. By that I mean that I'm not the type to obsess over end times events or to really engage in argumentation somebody who has a different view of Revelation than me. The plus of this for me is that I'm not getting into arguments over stuff that I won't likely be around to witness anyway. The downside of this is that I lack a refined eschatology. Every good theological position needs to be raked over the coals by your rivals a few times before you can feel confident of its cogency, in my opinion.

Now, from the get-go let me say that Koester's commentary struck me as something more akin to reflecting a Preterist-Idealist understanding of Revelation. Almost every image in Revelation is interpreted symbolically by Koester. Even the beast whose number is 666 receives a possible historical interpretation, and yet Koester seems unwilling to ever really commit to a firm historical understanding of any one individual fitting the image of the beast. This is true in almost every area of Koester's interpretation of Revelation. His commitment to the idea that the things in Revelation are for every era of the church means that nothing can be taken as having historically happened in any firm sense. This is why I am tempted to repeal my labeling of Koester as being Preterist. Now, it may be that he believes the events of Matthew 24 to have happened, and he might rightly be a Preterist in some sense, but his reading of Revelation does not really make clear (at least to me) that he really deserves to be considered a Preterist. Like I said, his reading of Revelation appears to me as more like what I understand the Idealist reading of Revelation to be. To be sure, he is Amillennial in his reading since he does not literalize the time of the millennium. But though he mentions favorably Augustine's view that we are in the millennium now, I noticed that he never comes out, himself, and shares his own belief. I noticed this because I was explicitly looking for it in the text. I have difficulty, as you can see, actually labeling Koester's approach, and since I'm an eschatology novice, I am myself unable to really categorize his approach, though I'm almost set on Amil-Partial-Preteristic-Idealist. Maybe somebody more knowledgeable than me can read my summaries of his arguments and tell me what he would rightly be considered.

My experience reading Koester's commentary was very positive. Up until now, Revelation seemed to me - as it does for many - to be a confusing book which tended to radicalize people in unpleasant ways. On top of that, I never wanted to be an "eschatology guy," - a sentiment shared by most Reformed theologians that I know. But Koester's discussion of Revelation really opened the book up to me in that I knew there was a tremendous amount of symbolism in the book, and I had rarely seen it interpreted before. Even in the interpretations of Koester where I disagree (for example his contention that the "first resurrection" and "second resurrection" are actually the same resurrection seen in "slow motion") I was able to at least put the text into an intelligible framework within which I could at least consider alternative interpretations of different ideas.

I can't say that I agree wholeheartedly with Koester's approach or conclusions, but I agree with his recognition with Augustine that Revelation is a book of cycles, where we see the events unfolding from different "perspectives" as it were. And so I appreciate his basic structure and will be piggybacking off of the things which I have learned from his book for many years, to be sure.

I do recommend Revelation and the End of All Things to every person who is looking for a simplified approach to Revelation that doesn't involve sticking your wet thumb into the proverbial wind to see where we're at in the eschatological time line. My gut tells me that he over-spiritualizes too many elements of the book, but his skill in crafting a coherent overall approach to the book scares me off a bit from criticizing too much of his take on things since his spiritualization of much of Revelation is what lends consistency to the account he has crafted for Revelation and the message that it was/is meant to communicate to the Church.

Ultimately, his contention that Revelation is a book with Christ as its center is absolutely right, and a message for all Christians, whatever their view of the end of all things happens to be.

Links to all 11 Parts of my discussion of Revelation and the End of All Things:

• Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; Part 4; Part 5; Part 6; Part 7; Part 8; Part 9; Part 10; Part 11
• Audio of Koester's Series on Revelation is available for free here from Monergism.

Revelation and the End of All Things is available from Amazon for just under $13 (as of my writing this, someone is selling a used copy on Amazon for $4), and the Kindle edition is available for $9.99.

Craig Koester's Amil-Preterist Commentary of Revelation (Conclusion)

The Last Cycle of Visions: Revelation 19-22 (Part 2)

The Last Judgment: Revelation 20

So John has just witnessed the final defeat of the false prophet, of the beast, and of Satan himself. In a tremendous display of his might, Christ defeated them solely by his Word. But as John looks again, he sees a vision of a great white throne. As God enters the picture, we sense the dread fear with which His creation regards him. We read that "earth and sky fled from his presence."

The dead are all standing before the white throne, and we see that there are two books being opened - the contents of which are of tremendous importance. In one book are all of the deeds each person has done, and in the other, we have something like "a civic record, in which the citizens of the city of God have their names inscribed." Koester recognizes that this book was written "from the foundation of the world," and rightly recognizes that some readers will sense the helpless approach of Calvin's hoofbeats. "Note that in the judgment, both divine grace and human accountability are important, but God's decision is finally based on the grace that is represented by the book of life." He raises the concern that some have regarding the fact that the names have been written "from the foundation of the world," but seems to sidestep the question by simply recognizing that the rescue is at hand if they will only believe, since that is the path of escape. "[L]eave matters concerning the final judgment in God's hands" (191).

Notice that those whose names are not written in the book of life have plenty of deeds in the other book by which they are judged. I'm so tempted to start making my own comments about the predestinarian elements in this section of Revelation, but I will restrain my tendencies, since Koester himself does not dwell here. But let it unofficially be remembered that the Book of Life is a very counter-intuitive idea to your average modern evangelical Arminian.

The New Jerusalem: Revelation 21

Throughout Revelation, there has been this tension between promise and warning. "To the one who overcomes" is the common refrain which we hear, and now we see those promises fulfilled in the New Heaven and the New Earth. So throughout, from beginning to end, Revelation has consistently hammered the message of enduring hardship and persecution. All those trials, pains, hardships, and martyrdoms are finding their promises fulfilled here. Although at this point in the narrative, the city's inhabitants have been decided, the reader is still offered another reminder of warning: that "the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars" will not have any part in this new creation, but that, rather, their place will be in the lake of fire. The heavenly voice names off these sins - all of which we have broken to some degree " in order to move people to reject sins and to trust in the grace Christ provides." Revelation is in many respects an evangelistic book.

In 21:9, an angel tells John, "Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb." But the next thing he shows him is a city - the New Jerusalem. Some readers might be expecting then, to look into the city and see the Bride, but alas, the city itself is His Bride. Whereas Babylon is associated with the Harlot, the New Jerusalem is associated with the Bride - the same one who was earlier pursued by the Dragon.

When we come to the dimensions of the New Jerusalem, we receive another clue to the symbolic nature of the New Jerusalem, because we are told that its dimensions are 12,000 stadia on each side; this is not-so-coincidentally the same as the number of each tribe in the 144,000. Consider the alternative; if this is not a symbolic representation of the city, then for the first time in human history, we have a city that looks suspiciously like the Borg Cube from Star Trek. Also consider that this cube would cover about half of the United States in its size, since it would actually be around 1500 miles on every side and also extend 1500 miles into space. This is hardly a picture of a literal city. Also, remember that Ezekiel's vision of the restored city pictured it as being only a mile and a half on each side (Ezekiel 48:8-9). The city is the Church, and she is His beautiful Wife (ESV). By referring to its size as being perfectly cubical and 12,000 stadia on each side, "The New Jerusalem's holiness and perfection is expressed." The point is not the quantity of the city, but rather, the quality. (Koester also points out that the city's cubic shape suggests that the city is a sanctuary, much like the inner chamber of the tabernacle and temple, which were also cubical in shape.)

The River of Life/The End Is Near: Revelation 22

In addition to being a city in which there will no longer be any uncleanness, the church is also pictured as returning to the state of pre-fall Eden. Not only will the river of life run through the city, but the Tree of Life, which eluded Adam and Eve at the time of the Fall will be returned to redeemed humanity.

In the New Jerusalem, the barriers of sin and mortality are removed by the grace of God, and the redeemed find themselves again in the garden. Instead of hiding from God's face, they turn towards God's face...The promise that the righteous might one day see the Lord comes to its fulfillment (Ps. 11:7; Matt. 5:8; 1 John 3:2). The night of sin and death is gone; the uncertainty issues into understanding (1 Cor. 13:12). The story of God's people reaches its culmination when they 'rest and see, see the love and praise. This is what shall be in the end without end' (Augustine, The City of God 22.30).
(200)

Koester says that there are two reasons why Revelation "can and should speak to people today."

• Christians culturally encounter similar situations to those in the seven churches to whom this letter was written.
• Revelation speaks of the timeless one Who "was and is and is to come." Because Christ is objective and real and does not change, the realities communicated about Him in Revelation are still every bit as true now as they were when they were first written.

The Spirit and the bride say, 'Come.'
And let everyone who hears say, 'Come.'
And let everyone who is thirsty, come.
Let anyone who wishes take the water of life as a gift.
Revelation 22:17

I will be writing one more blog post with regards to Koester's book, and in that post I will be offering what essentially amounts to a review of the book, now that I have tried to present Koester's views and basic arguments.

Sam Waldron on The First Resurrection in Revelation 20

My first exposure to Sam Waldron was his book on the 1689 London Baptist Confession. He has also written a book on eschatology called End Times Made Simple. A friend of mine recently pointed me to a terrific preaching series by Waldron titled 'The Coming of the Kingdom.' I've listened to it, and it is a really tremendous discussion of Revelation 20 from an amillennial perspective. In particular, I was helped by his discussion of the verses which discuss what is meant by the "first resurrection."

I had previously held that the blessed "first resurrection" was the resurrection of the soul from sin and death when God regenerates a sinner. However, Waldron takes a simpler approach. He argues that the "first resurrection" with which we should all seek to take part in is Jesus' resurrection. This is somewhat in line with what I had previously held, I think but it was a far more helpful way to understand the first resurrection, and is much more in line with the words of the text.

You can find the sermon series in MP3 format here.

Craig Koester's Amil-Preterist Commentary of Revelation (Part 10)

The Last Cycle of Visions: Revelation 19-22

Christ the Conqueror: Chapter 19

After another cycle of glorious worship in heaven, John sees heaven open and Christ comes riding on a white horse wearing a bloody robe. Once again, we see him brandishing his weapon of choice once again; the sword which comes out of his mouth. Notice that it is by the Word that he slays all of his enemies.

Disturbingly, the Marriage Supper of the Lamb actually begins with the saints worshiping before God and concludes with birds feasting on the corpses of God's destroyed enemies. The birds dine on Christ's enemies who were slain by His Word until they are "gorged with their flesh." Koester points out that this marriage supper is both a promise as well as a warning, depending on who the reader happens to be. The beast and false prophet are thrown into the lake of fire. Notice again and again that Christ's Word is the weapon which strikes down his enemies.

The Millennial Kingdom: Chapter 20

Having eliminated Satan's partners in evil, Christ only has Satan to deal with, now. The angel sizes Satan and "bound him for a thousand years...so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended." Koester asks two questions with reference to this verse. His first question is, could you identify or find the "bottomless pit" in a geographic location? His answer to this is, no. In the same vein, he asks, could we then, find the timing of Satan's binding on a calendar?

Just as the door of the great abyss cannot be located on a map, the duration of the thousand years cannot be located on a calendar. One does not draw nearer to heaven by means of a space shuttle or nearer to the abyss by digging a shaft into the ground, and one does not enter the thousand-year period by turning a calendar page. John refers to time in order to point readers to a reality that lies beyond time (181).

He then points to other numerical references in Revelation that are non-literal:

• The allies of the beast who receive kingly power "for one hour," referring to a short period of time (17:12), not a mere 60 minute reign.
• The persecution lasting 3 1/2 years (11:1-2).
• The use of 144,000 to denote a perfect number of the redeemed (7:4-8).
• The multiples of "thousand" used to show the dimensions of the New Jerusalem (21:16).

Rather than counting off a thousand cycles around the sun, Koester says, the thousand years is meant to represent a fullness of time which comports with and satisfies the will of God.

What are the actual traits of the thousand year reign? It might seem like somewhat of a letdown to dispensationalists, because they are used to inserting all sorts of promises from other places in scripture and using this section as "a container" for those promises, though they are completely absent from verses 4-6 where we read about the millennial kingdom.

• Those seated on the thrones receive a good judgment from God (he says this is the best translation from the original language in contrast to most modern translations which have the saints judging).
• The souls of the faithful come to life and reign with Christ (we are not told if this reign is in heaven or on earth). John calls this the first resurrection.

These three verse are really quite a disappointment if you're a dispensationalist. The only way to juice up this passage is to bring in texts from other places, such as Isaiah 65 (which don't really find fulfillment until chapter 21). Since we are not told if this reign will take place on heaven or on earth, all we can affirm with the text is that the saints are reigning "with Christ."

The statement regarding the first resurrection in verses 5-6 read, "This is the first resurrection! Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years." Koester understands this to be a reference to the general resurrection. The way he sees it, the first resurrection is a way of speaking of the resurrection of the saints, while the second resurrection is a reference to the general resurrection of the ungodly. Koester acknowledges that Revelation is unique among the New Testament books in its referring to the Resurrection in two stages, but he does not see this as problematic. Note that the text says that the one who takes part in the first resurrection is "blessed." Essentially, then, Koester sees the distinction between the "first" and "second" resurrection to be a way of prioritizing the resurrections of the faithful and the wicked, not of actually separating them into completely different events.

We soon discover that the millennial reign "was not the climax of the cycle, but merely one point along the way to the New Jerusalem." The last chapters of Revelation are where we see the unfolding and fulfillment of the prophecies in Ezekiel 38 and 39. However, Revelation does not picture their fulfillment in the same chronology as Ezekiel does. Evidently, Koester says, we once again see that chronology is hardly a priority for John.

So Satan is released again to deceive the nations. Koester seems as puzzled by this event as the rest of us, but he derives from this the principle that it is not enough for evil to be bound; it must be brought to an end. Ultimately, the faithful saints reside in a "camp" which is surrounded by God's enemies for the last time. As we have seen time and time throughout Revelation, God's enemies are relentless and seek every possible opportunity to devastate the Christian community. As we have also seen, this pattern never ends well for Satan, and 20:9-10 is no exception, as fire falls from heaven consuming them. Finally, Satan himself is thrown into the lake and fire along with his cronies, the false prophet and the beast. It is a happy ending for the saints, as these three enemies of God "will be tormented day and night forever and ever." To the very end, Revelation stays true to its message that we may not ever think ourselves "neutral" with regards to God. Either we are for Him, or we are for Satan. There is no middle-ground. If we side with the Devil and his angels by disregarding Christ, we will share in his fate, and so the fate of the Devil as expressed here is a warning for the ungodly and a joyful promise for the Saints.

Craig Koester's Amil-Preterist Commentary of Revelation (Part 9)

The Harlot and the Bride: Revelation 15-19

Chapter 14, in keeping with the pattern, concludes with worship in heaven. We are again reminded that neutrality in this cosmic struggle is not possible. If we are not God, then we are against Him; we cannot hide ourselves among His enemies and expect to avoid their fate in facing the wrath of God.

Although this worship is happening, we are reminded in the first verse of chapter 15 that the Beast still rages upon the earth. Therefore, God, in Chapter 16, sends seven plagues upon the Beast and his cronies. As stressed with the visions of seven in the previous cycles, these plagues are not futuristic predictions, but rather warnings to move the readers to repentance. This is the common theme which Koester consistently emphasizes with reference to the plagues and displays of wrath which we find throughout Revelation. "When readers are moved to ask where their own deepest loyalties lie, the text has its proper effect" (148).

Armageddon (16:16)

The word "Armageddon" certainly conjurs wild images to the modern reader. In modern english nomenclature, the word "armageddon" is often used as shorthand for incredibly epic and potentially world-ending war involving jets and tanks and bombs and suicide donkeys. However, the name "armageddon" is a combination of two hebrew words: "har," which means "mountain" and the name "Megiddo" - a location in northern Israel. Koester notes that this combination of words is "peculiar... since Megiddo is actually located on a plain rather than a mountain." Based on the fact that John does not use Hebrew names in a literal fashion (they are almost always used symbolically), Koester points out that this Hebrew name is also symbolic. Based on the way that Megiddo occurs in the Old Testament (2 Chr. 35:22; Zech. 12:11; Judges 5:19; these are all places where enemies of the Lord are destroyed), Koester says that Megiddo is symbolic of "a place name that portends the coming destruction of the adversaries of God."

The Fall of Babylon and the Great Harlot (Revelation 17-19)

Once again, observe the non-linear structure of Revelation. Just as Babylon was shattered by an earthquake in 16:19, we see it once again in chapter 17.

Recall that John has a particular intention; namely to compel his readers to identify with the woman who is pursued by the beast (that being the Church). Part of his approach is to depict the enemies of God as ten-headed monsters, as prostitutes, as Beasts, as hideous creatures - not only that we might see them for what they are, but so that we would be repulsed to think that we could have partnership with them.

So we're rooting for the church, all the way, and the church is depicted as this woman who is dodging danger at every turn. John presents us with her evil counterpart, the Great Prostitute (ESV). "The women in Revelation 12 and 17 are portrayed in sharply contrasting ways in order to win the readers' allegiance to the persecuted woman, who represents the people of God, and to alienate them from the repulsive harlot, who represents the adversaries of God" (154). Consider the contrasts:

• The church is depicted as "the mother of the Messiah and the faithful (12:5, 17).
• The harlot is depicted as "the mother of whores and of earth's abominations" (17:5).
• The church is depicted as being "pursued by a seven-headed monster."
• The harlot, meanwhile, "happily rides a seven-headed monster and drinks the blood of the saints (17:6)."

When it comes to the somewhat confounding discussion in verses 9-14 of chapter 7, Koester discusses the difficulty interpreters have had attempting to identify who the seven kings who will share in their reign with ten lesser kings and so on. Koester chooses a rather different path by claiming that "John uses evocative imagery that resists decoding." He does suggest that "Picturing an eighth king as a return of one of the seven seems to play on legends that Nero would return, so that one could say of a future persecution of the people of God: 'It is Nero all over again'... Despite the ambiguity in its detais, the end of the story is clear. Evil self-destructs. The beast and its allies begin by waging war against the Lab (17:13-14), but they end up destroying the harlot (17:16)" (161).

When we turn our attention to Babylon's Funeral in chapter 18, Koester suggests verse 4 as the key verse for understanding what is happening:

Come out of her, my people,
so that you do not take part in her sins,
and so that you do not share in her plagues.

As Koester points out, the right reaction to the Fall of the Harlot and of Babylon "is not fatalism, but an 'altered life.'" Again and again, the primary pattern we see in Revelation involves Satanic attempts to destroy the church, with God at every stage demonstrating his superiority by inflicting on the Beast and his followers plagues, disasters, and judgments of all sorts. In the face of reality, of sin, of death, of mortality, of God's obvious superiority, the fallen world continues to worship anything and everything but the God who made all things.

If we are confounded at the unwillingness of most of the earth's population to worship God and turn away from Satan and his idols, we need look no further than heaven, once again, to find the heavenly company singing God's praises. Again, we see "a great multitude crying out."

Praise our God,
all you his servants,
you who fear him,
small and great.

The horrors always recede for us to see the universe as it should be, and as it will be. God's superiority is proclaimed at all times, regardless of how violently the dragon might lash out. And an even happier time lies ahead, as we prepare to witness the marriage supper of the Lamb and the millennial reign. This should be an interesting near-conclusion.

Craig Koester's Amil-Preterist Commentary of Revelation (Part 8)

The Beast and the Lamb (Revelation 12-15)

The Dragon (Chapter 12)

• Dragon = Satan
• The Woman = The Church
• The Child = Jesus

In Koester's take on this section of Revelation, we see that Satan pursues the church, attempting to overtake Christ and end his rule. Satan believed that he had succeeded in his attempt, in the crucifixion. However, after the resurrection, instead of remaining on earth, Jesus is caught up into heaven and demonstrates that Satan has been defeated in his rising. This is what we see in verses 7 and following; after a war in heaven, the dragon is defeated and is now confined to the earth. He is restricted from again entering heaven. Because of this, Satan is flailing; he knows that he is defeated, and like a beaten animal in an enclosed space, he lashes out in "great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!" (12:12) After this, the dragon tries repeatedly to make war on the church, yet is repeatedly foiled in its attempts.

The Two Beasts (Chapter 13)
Satan stands on the shore of the sea "as if to conjure up a new and terrible specter of evil." Satan, as well as his two minions - the beast of the sea and the beast from the land - form a new sort of "Unholy Trinity." The beast of the sea wears ten crowns - emphasizing its desire for renown and power. Revelation presents this beast as something of an evil counterpart to the Lamb. Whereas the Lamb's suffering brings glory to God, the first Beast's apparent suffering brings worship to Satan. The beast is an amalgamation "of oppressive powers from various times and places, creating a composite picture of evil."

While the beast of the sea brings worshippers to Satan, the Beast of the land serves as a false prophet. If the people of the world will not identify with this servant of Satan, then they will face economic pressures (13:17). It would be easy to simply say that Koester takes the typical Preterist approach and names Nero as the Beast from the land right away. However, Koester sees the beast of the Land as something larger and more epically far-reaching than simply one individual who functions in a single moment. He says that this is part of the reason why so many throughout history seem to "fit the bill" of the Beast; because while John does link the Beast with a single individual, the Beast also represents leadership which demands worship over and above that which God deserves. This is a common and persistent enemy of the Church throughout all eras of history.

666

This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666 (13:18).

A couple of observations. First, John believes that his readers in the churches - if they have wisdom - will be able to identify the Beast. 666 "is the number of a man." A historical figure. A literal person whom first century readers would have known.

Koester sets forth Nero as a prime candidate. Several of his traits line up with what we expect from the Beast:

• Nero ruthlessly persecuted Christians of John's time, "making war on the saints" (13:7).
• Nero killed himself by slitting his own throat, though, like Elvis, rumors persisted that he was still alive (13:3, 12, 14).

Koester points out that deducing the identity of the Beast merely by way of gematria is insufficient, since it is possible to spell out many names which add up to 666. For example, if simply adding up 666 were sufficient, one would discover that Barney the "Cute Purple Dinosaur", "Ronald Raegan" or "Computer" were the Beast. Rather, he says that gematria is only one piece of the puzzle. If you already knew somebody's name, you could easily see if their name matched a given number. Nevertheless, he does substantiate the claim that Nero matches up with 666, and in his demonstration he does not disappoint.

The gematriatic method of communication has a historical basis. For example, in Pompeii a man proclaimed his love for a girl in graffiti by writing, "I love her whose number is 545." This was a known method of communication. In many respects, Nero did, in fact, fit the bill for the Beast. When written in Hebrew, "Caesar Neron" transiterates as "nron qsr."

• nun (50) + resh (200) + waw (6) + nun (50) + qof (100) + samech (60) + resh (200) = 666

One interesting textual variant found in some manuscripts lists the Beast's number as being 616. This is exactly what the name "Caesar Neron" adds up to if you dropped the second "n" from "Neron" and simply transliterated his name as "Nero." This variant is tremendously insightful as to what the earliest scribes understood to be happening here in this section of the text. It shows that the earliest textual scribes understood Nero to be the Beast.

This is as far as my own demonstration goes, since I know next to nothing about Hebrew or gematria. Even though I was public schooled, I do know enough about math to know that those numbers do equal 666 when added together.

In his conclusion of this section, Koester seems to appreciate other historical interpretations. For example, some identify the beast of the sea as Rome, with the beast of the land standing for "the local Asian supporters of Rome." He says, however, that the difficulty of identifying a single historical figure to identify with these enemies of the Lamb is not a problem.

Rather, it shows that the imagery depicts threats that cannot be limited to a single time and place. On the one hand, the portrayal of the two beasts does not convey coded information that will allow readers to know when the end of time has come. On the other hand, the visions may have called first-century readers to resist Roman practices...The summons to persevere is not simply a message for a generation living in the first century or at the end of time; it is a message for all generations that are confronted with idolatry and violence.
(Pg. 135)

King and Servant Show 22

Jonathan is joined by special guest Dee Dee Warren to exposit the Olivet discourse from a Preterist perspective, seeing the events predicted therein as being largely fulfilled within the first century with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70

King and Servant Show 15

Jonathan and Bryan discuss eschatology and the sensationalism that often surrounds modern end time scenarios. Jonathan lays the foundations of a more biblical eschatology, which is primarily focused on the consummation of redemptive history.

For other shows go to KingandServant.com

Eschatology Conversation

Maybe I Should Be Post-Millennial

After watching this video, I was forced to rethink my eschatology. But at the end, I stayed right where I was.

Is Transformationism Postmillennial?

As some of you may be aware, in H. Richard Niebuhr's seminal work, Christ and Culture, he characterizes Calvin's position as "Christ the Transformer of Culture." Notwithstanding the fact that Niebuhr forgot to quote Calvin in the chapter devoted to him, the question could be raised whether "transformationism" is the best paradigm to capture the Church's relationship to, and responsibility in, society.

Transformationism, for those who haven't heard the term, is the view that the Church's role in this world includes transforming and redeeming the culture, and bringing it under the banner of Christ's Lordship (which, as contemporary Kuyperians tirelessly remind us, includes every "square inch" of the cosmos).

Obviously this position is directly opposed to the two kingdoms model, which recognizes culture as its own kingdom that is legitimate on its own terms, and therefore is not to be the object of redemptive efforts.

So here's my question: Is the desire to (in some sense) inaugurate the kingdom of God by means of cultural renewal more consistent with an amillennial or a postmillennial eschatology?

I'll show my cards later, but you first....

The Gospel In Two Sentences

"God had sent his Son into the world to die for sins. He had lived in Palestine and had taught for a few years, and had been killed like a criminal, though innocent, and had risen from the dead to show that his death was a ransom for sin, and had ascended into heaven where he rules the world until the time when he will come and establish his kingdom for all those who have put their life in his hands."

John Piper, Taste and See

Preterism for Dummies Like Me (Part 2)

"If I Really HAD to Point to One Verse..."

If I could preface all of this with one command, it would be, "Read Matthew Chapter 24 in its entirety before reading any farther.

... ... ...

Now, did you read it? Good. Now, for years, Christians have claimed that Biblical prophecy buttresses our belief in the reliability of the scriptures. Many unbelievers, however, point to Matthew chapter 24 as an example of unfulfilled prophecy.

In the passage, Jesus predicts a number of things which, according to some Christians, have never happened.

These predictions include:
a) False messiahs (v. 4-5)
b) Wars and rumors of war (v. 6-7)
c) Famines and Earthquakes (v. 7)
d) Times of unmatched persecution (v. 9-14)
e) Lawlessness (v. 12)
f) Gospel preached to the whole world (v. 14)
g) The Abomination of Desolation (Predicted in Daniel 9:24-27; Reiterated in v. 15)
h) The Great Tribulation (v. 21-22)
i) Jesus comes with judgement, on the clouds (v. 29-30)

Now, the short version of it is that in verse 34, Jesus says something very important regarding the timetable for the things he is predicting. "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." This really is the clenching idea; did Jesus' predictions come true within the lifetime of those listening to His words, or not? (The Geneva Institute for Reformed Studies has done a nice little study demonstrating how each of these predictions of Jesus have, historically speaking, been fulfilled.)

The important idea, however, is to understand that Jesus was speaking to a particular audience when he predicted these things. He was not speaking to 21st century Christians, He was speaking to first century Jews. And in the presence of these Jews, in roughly the year 30 AD, he pronounced that all his predictions would come true before they had all died. It seems relatively clear, then, that we ought to look for the fulfillment of these predictions to occur within the lifetime of his audience. The Preterist position, I would submit, offers the clearest, plainest, and most literal understanding of Christ's words possible here in Matthew 24.

A little nugget from our good buddy, John Calvin may be apropos regarding verse 34:

Though Christ employs a general expression, yet he does not extend the discourses to all the miseries which would befall the Church, but merely informs them, that before a single generation shall have been completed, they will learn by experience the truth of what he has said. For within fifty years the city was destroyed and the temple was rased, the whole country was reduced to a hideous desert, and the obstinacy of the world rose up against God. Nay more, their rage was inflamed to exterminate the doctrine of salvation, false teachers arose to corrupt the pure gospel by their impostures, religion sustained amazing shocks, and the whole company of the godly was miserably distressed. Now though the same evils were perpetrated in uninterrupted succession for many ages afterward, yet what Christ said was true, that, before the close of a single generation, believers would feel in reality, and by undoubted experience, the truth of his prediction

Are We To Prefer Faithless Israel?

I was reading Thomas Ice's review of The Apocalypse Code by Hank Hanegraaff and just wanted to offer a few comments on the rhetoric and spin Ice uses in his review.

Ice says:

This book is not only filled with factual error throughout, but teaches that most Bible prophecy has already been fulfilled and advocates the following preterist viewpoints: Nero was the beast of Revelation (i.e., the antichrist), Christ's Olivet discourse and most of the Book of Revelation were fulfilled by events surrounding the a.d. 70 destruction of Jerusalem, and the tribulation was also fulfilled in the first century.

So far, so good... A nice summary. Ice continues:

Hanegraaff is certainly no lover of Israel since he teaches that God divorced the harlot Israel (he needs to read the end of Hosea) and took a new bride-the church, supports the pro-Palestinian claims against Israel, and even accuses Israel of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Hanegraaff embraces and argues for many viewpoints that are detrimental to sound Bible study and interpretation.

Just because Hanegraaff isn't actively supporting and exalting everything Israel does does not mean he is no lover of Israel. We, as Christians are called to love everyone, including those who are not in the faith - and therefore outside of the family of God. I am certain that even though Hanegraaff isn't waving the Israeli flag outside his house, it is fair to say that Hanegraaff doesn't hate Israel. He is simply saying that we, as Christians, should stop preferring one group of people because of their genetic lineage. That is racism, as he points out. Rather, all of the human race is on equal footing with God, in that our DNA does not decide whether he loves or hates us.

Also, the Bible does not teach that God has taken a new bride. Rather, God is staying true to the same covenant that He has always promised to follow: that he would be with his people. Who are his people? Those who love him and follow his commandments. If Israel has violated this agreement (by rejecting their Messiah), but many who are Gentiles have been "grafted in" (by believing in their Messiah) as it were, is it not safe to say that God is staying true to the same bride He has always stayed true to?

Additionally, with regards to Ice's review, I would say that once one abandons this racist notion that Israelis are preferred by God because of their genetics (in spite of their rebellion against the Messiah) Hanegraaff's accusation of ethnic cleansing seems to make sense, to a certain degree.

This will possibly be (depending on who reads this) the most controversial thing I've said, but I agree with Hanegraaff that we as Christians now possess the full revelation of God, and as such, we know that God desires faith, and that His covenant between Abraham and his descendants is only for those descendants who are "true descendants" who have faith in the same savior whom Abraham looked forward to (Gal. 3:7-9).

[Edit: I would like to point everyone to a couple of articles on this subject. One is by Michael Horton entitled Remnant: Who is Israel? Another interesting article by Gary DeMar points out that given the dispensational hermeneutic, there is a massive holocaust awaiting the Jews in the Holy Land. I also want to clarify that my actual position is not that Israel is permanently cut off from ever being saved (many Jews become believers every day around the world, I'm sure). Rather, my point is that ethnic Israel now receives no special treatment if they persist in unbelief.]

Polls Decide Truth, So Amillenial It Is!

We are relieved to announce that our eschatology poll has come to an end. Since the poll has ended, an overwhelming majority of you have spoken. 54% of you voted in favor of amillenialism. And now that we have a consensus, we at Bring the Books are able to officially announce that this is the place to come whenever you feel that you are not welcome in your premillenial, dispensational, and yes, even in your postmillenial churches. That's right, because we listen to the crowds and have little or no mind for ourselves, we are officially christening this blog Amillenial World. This will, of course, be used as a nickname or unofficial title, since Josh and I still really like Bring the Books.

And, because popular vote decides truth (polls don't lie, after all), we are also pleased to announce that amillenialism is the official biblical position. It's been debated for thousands of years, and there's been alot of tough studying done by everyone involved, but you all knew there had to come a day when some resolution would finally be reached. That's right: this poll has settled it.

And in keeping with thousands of years of Church tradition, we have the difficult task of announcing that everyone who voted amill will be allowed to stay in their respective churches, while those who voted otherwise have until the end of the month to get their theology straight or vacate their posts.

It's a difficult time for everyone, and though this announcement is easier to make because we are, ourselves, amillenial, we know this will be best for everyone.

Again, you have until January 2nd 2008 to convert to the majority position of amillenialism. After that date, if you have yet to shift your eschatology, Adam will start posting Monty Python quotes, and Josh will be forced to upload videos of himself performing Social Distortion songs, acapella.

Again, we're sorry it has come to this point, but we feel the church is better served if we just pull off the band-aid quickly rather than drawing it out slowly and painfully. In ten years, you'll all look back at this moment and realize this really was the right way to go about it.